"Sovereign Citizens" and the Freemen movement

[Schone23666]

Has anyone read up on these two particular movements? Here's a wiki article for those that are interested with general information:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovere...tizen_movement

And if you want to watch some amusing (and at times violent) encounters between Sovereign Citizens/Freemen and law enforcement, here's this on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCozh_vbYdM

I believe Swaghauler mentioned he'd had more than a few run-ins with the Sovereign Citizen crowd. Sound like a really fun bunch, especially when they start breaking out the firearms and explosives....

My personal observation....yeah, I get people are frustrated with government, but JIMINY F**KING CHRIST ON A JIMMY STICK, these guys must idolize fellas like Timothy McVeigh. :O If you want to change the political system you have to actually get involved in the political process. These nutballs seem to take an entirely different route.

Yeah, I can definitely see some of these guys forming New America in T2k or some nutball militia in Merc2000....or just being part of any so-called "Sovereign Nation Militia" popping up in some part of America, Australia, the U.K. or elsewhere with their own bizarre interpretation of a republic.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Schone23666

Has anyone read up on these two particular movements? Here's a wiki article for those that are interested with general information:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovere...tizen_movement

And if you want to watch some amusing (and at times violent) encounters between Sovereign Citizens/Freemen and law enforcement, here's this on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCozh_vbYdM

I believe Swaghauler mentioned he'd had more than a few run-ins with the Sovereign Citizen crowd. Sound like a really fun bunch, especially when they start breaking out the firearms and explosives....

My personal observation....yeah, I get people are frustrated with government, but JIMINY F**KING CHRIST ON A JIMMY STICK, these guys must idolize fellas like Timothy McVeigh. :O If you want to change the political system you have to actually get involved in the political process. These nutballs seem to take an entirely different route.

Yeah, I can definitely see some of these guys forming New America in T2k or some nutball militia in Merc2000....or just being part of any so-called "Sovereign Nation Militia" popping up in some part of America, Australia, the U.K. or elsewhere with their own bizarre interpretation of a republic.

This actually is a very interesting topic and I can see this happening in T2K as the rights of the Sovereign Citizen as termed under Common English Law which is the defacto law of the land in most of the former British Empire and the United States is legally the highest authority in the land.

All of our major laws are part of the Common Law, practically every other legal entity has been introduced by governments for commercial and revenue generating reasons and are acts and technicalities of fairly dubious legal authority. The entire judicial system in the Western English speaking world is I believe commercial law which is not legally binding under Common Law.

Police officers are officers of the peace, and legally have no right to question or arrest you if you have not broken the peace or broken a law. If you have not broken a law they have no right to ask for your name and address, and traffic and tax violations are not laws so the police have no real right to bother you over them. You also have no obligation to sign anything in a police station including a release document if you have broken no law.

There are also a lot of technicalities that you can legally challenge if you receive a summons or a fine by mail. Summonses have to be legally delivered to you in person, and all government mail is actually phrased incorrectly (deliberately) as it addresses you in your commercial strawman name in CAPS which is not your real name on your birth certificate. As you have never signed any document agreeing to the legality of a commercial summons or fine do not legally have to pay it or even attend court as you have broken no Common Law. That also applies to the draft or conscription into the armed forces.

Also a judge has no other name than a judge. Using your honour etc is court is optional. Also a judge is supposed to carry their oath with them at all times in court. Very few do and if you are in court for breaking an actual law and happen to ask the judge to see his oath and he or she cant produce it then the court is invalid and you are entitled to walk free and the judge knows it

Loads of potential T2k material for the legally unhappy to challenge authority.

[Legbreaker]

Actually trying any of that is likely to end rather badly for the average person though.

[Schone23666]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Actually trying any of that is likely to end rather badly for the average person though.

Going by how many of these "Citizens" often purposefully will try to get into confrontations with law enforcement, some of the said "Citizens" armed and spoiling for a fight, it often does.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Actually trying any of that is likely to end rather badly for the average person though.

For the ill-informed yes, but if you have a hard neck like most of the Sovereign Citizen crowd you could push your way through the legal system and probably get away with challenging a lot of things unless you actually broke an actual law. Some of these people live for this and know the actual laws and they can be a nightmare for the police and the legal fraternity.

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by RN7

This actually is a very interesting topic and I can see this happening in T2K as the rights of the Sovereign Citizen as termed under Common English Law which is the defacto law of the land in most of the former British Empire and the United States is legally the highest authority in the land.

All of our major laws are part of the Common Law, practically every other legal entity has been introduced by governments for commercial and revenue generating reasons and are acts and technicalities of fairly dubious legal authority. The entire judicial system in the Western English speaking world is I believe commercial law which is not legally binding under Common Law.

Police officers are officers of the peace, and legally have no right to question or arrest you if you have not broken the peace or broken a law. If you have not broken a law they have no right to ask for your name and address, and traffic and tax violations are not laws so the police have no real right to bother you over them. You also have no obligation to sign anything in a police station including a release document if you have broken no law.

There are also a lot of technicalities that you can legally challenge if you receive a summons or a fine by mail. Summonses have to be legally delivered to you in person, and all government mail is actually phrased incorrectly (deliberately) as it addresses you in your commercial strawman name in CAPS which is not your real name on your birth certificate. As you have never signed any document agreeing to the legality of a commercial summons or fine do not legally have to pay it or even attend court as you have broken no Common Law. That also applies to the draft or conscription into the armed forces.

Also a judge has no other name than a judge. Using your honour etc is court is optional. Also a judge is supposed to carry their oath with them at all times in court. Very few do and if you are in court for breaking an actual law and happen to ask the judge to see his oath and he or she cant produce it then the court is invalid and you are entitled to walk free and the judge knows it

Loads of potential T2k material for the legally unhappy to challenge authority.

I can also see this happening as they say they are following law, but they are not. They go with as you say that common law is the highest authority in the land, but that is not legally the case. It is the US Constitution, not English common law. Having said that it is a growing movement in the US as lots of people are some place between upset and very mad at the government that is not responsive to the people, the problem there is with our two party system being so polar opposite there is very little if any middle ground. If you do something to make one side happy it make the other mad.

In the TW2000 setting I am not sure how big they would be, as it really took off after 2000, in the TW2013 it would be big.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by CDAT

They go with as you say that common law is the highest authority in the land, but that is not legally the case. It is the US Constitution, not English common law.

The US Constitution is I think partially based on English Common Law, now known as American Common Law. After the revolution some English Common Laws or traditions were outlawed by the US Constitution, but some were retained and over the past 230 years they have just divergence from British laws but still exist. All US states except Louisiana have enacted reception statutes which generally state that the common law of England is the law of the state to the extent that it is not repugnant to domestic law or indigenous conditions.

[.45cultist]

These two groups are as ignorant as those who are indifferent about their rights and how the government is supposed to work. No amount of reformation would suffice, they would find justification to do what they like. I think they would be quite an obstacle to rebuilding in a game.

[pmulcahy11b]

These guys will probably turn into marauders and warlords in the T2K timeline.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by RN7

The US Constitution is I think partially based on English Common Law, now known as American Common Law. After the revolution some English Common Laws or traditions were outlawed by the US Constitution, but some were retained and over the past 230 years they have just divergence from British laws but still exist. All US states except Louisiana have enacted reception statutes which generally state that the common law of England is the law of the state to the extent that it is not repugnant to domestic law or indigenous conditions.

If I remember, some of the ideas the framers used went all the way back to the Magna Carta.

[LT. Ox]

Originally Posted by RN7

This actually is a very interesting topic and I can see this happening in T2K as the rights of the Sovereign Citizen as termed under Common English Law which is the defacto law of the land in most of the former British Empire and the United States is legally the highest authority in the land.

All of our major laws are part of the Common Law, practically every other legal entity has been introduced by governments for commercial and revenue generating reasons and are acts and technicalities of fairly dubious legal authority. The entire judicial system in the Western English speaking world is I believe commercial law which is not legally binding under Common Law.

Police officers are officers of the peace, and legally have no right to question or arrest you if you have not broken the peace or broken a law. If you have not broken a law they have no right to ask for your name and address, and traffic and tax violations are not laws so the police have no real right to bother you over them. You also have no obligation to sign anything in a police station including a release document if you have broken no law.

There are also a lot of technicalities that you can legally challenge if you receive a summons or a fine by mail. Summonses have to be legally delivered to you in person, and all government mail is actually phrased incorrectly (deliberately) as it addresses you in your commercial strawman name in CAPS which is not your real name on your birth certificate. As you have never signed any document agreeing to the legality of a commercial summons or fine do not legally have to pay it or even attend court as you have broken no Common Law. That also applies to the draft or conscription into the armed forces.

Also a judge has no other name than a judge. Using your honour etc is court is optional. Also a judge is supposed to carry their oath with them at all times in court. Very few do and if you are in court for breaking an actual law and happen to ask the judge to see his oath and he or she cant produce it then the court is invalid and you are entitled to walk free and the judge knows it

Loads of potential T2k material for the legally unhappy to challenge authority.

Having been a Deputy Sheriff for a good part of my life and trained a number of Officers that still are active I have some knowledge of what you are discussing. Your use of definitive terms makes it appear that there is no room for discussion or debate.

However, English Common law is not the law of the United States, it is the base from which our law is derived much as the English language has evolved so has jurisprudence.

Our system of Law has a number of similarities and a large number of differences from Magna Carta influenced Common law, first among them is the Constitution of the United States wherein each state is given the right to make and amend laws as is deemed proper and with-in common sense to those persons elected to represent the people and to enact and enforce those laws.
The so called system as is put forth by those attempting to circumvent those laws is a non-workable and undefined or a best poorly defined set of guidelines with which to enact law.

Over two hundred years of change and challenge has brought us to the place we are now, do I agree with all the laws of this land? No, But I will follow the tenants set forth and will seek to change those I disagree with, in a lawful manner. I will not, upon being contacted by an Officer, demand that Officer follow my personal definition of what is right.

As a tool for gaming I do however see several venues or plot lines that might be followed to generate sufficient conflict as to be playable. I saw enough of that conflict when I charged and arrested then prosecuted those that held some of those ideas.

Oh by the way I do not think it wise to give out such leagal advice as you have put forth in your post, you could be in error and just might lead someone into serious trouble.

Harry O

[RN7]

Originally Posted by LT. Ox

Having been a Deputy Sheriff for a good part of my life and trained a number of Officers that still are active I have some knowledge of what you are discussing. Your use of definitive terms makes it appear that there is no room for discussion or debate.

No LT. Ox I am not making it appear that there is no room for debate. On the contrary I would be happy to debate this or see others debate this.

Originally Posted by LT. Ox

However, English Common law is not the law of the United States, it is the base from which our law is derived much as the English language has evolved so has jurisprudence.

And did I not state that " The US Constitution is I think partially based on English Common Law, now known as American Common Law. After the revolution some English Common Laws or traditions were outlawed by the US Constitution, but some were retained and over the past 230 years they have just divergence from British laws but still exist."

Originally Posted by LT. Ox

Our system of Law has a number of similarities and a large number of differences from Magna Carta influenced Common law, first among them is the Constitution of the United States wherein each state is given the right to make and amend laws as is deemed proper and with-in common sense to those persons elected to represent the people and to enact and enforce those laws. The so called system as is put forth by those attempting to circumvent those laws is a non-workable and undefined or a best poorly defined set of guidelines with which to enact law.

Over two hundred years of change and challenge has brought us to the place we are now........

And did I not state again " The US Constitution is I think partially based on English Common Law, now known as American Common Law. After the revolution some English Common Laws or traditions were outlawed by the US Constitution, but some were retained and over the past 230 years they have just divergence from British laws but still exist."......

And... "All US states except Louisiana have enacted reception statutes which generally state that the common law of England is the law of the state to the extent that it is not repugnant to domestic law or indigenous conditions" ?

Originally Posted by LT. Ox

do I agree with all the laws of this land? No, But I will follow the tenants set forth and will seek to change those I disagree with, in a lawful manner. I will not, upon being contacted by an Officer, demand that Officer follow my personal definition of what is right.

And if you were contacted by a police officer for whatever reason I think it would be advisable to act in a lawful manner.

Originally Posted by LT. Ox

As a tool for gaming I do however see several venues or plot lines that might be followed to generate sufficient conflict as to be playable. I saw enough of that conflict when I charged and arrested then prosecuted those that held some of those ideas.

Which I think is the reason that Schone23666 started the thread.

Originally Posted by LT. Ox

Oh by the way I do not think it wise to give out such leagal advice as you have put forth in your post, you could be in error and just might lead someone into serious trouble.

And do you really think that the members of this board seek legal advice for me? If you do I'm very flattered but really I'm actually just stating facts which are freely available online, and I stated these facts to support Schone23666's statement about the current Sovereign Citizen movement and how it could relate to a T2K scenario. However if you feel that some members of this site might be a bit feeble minded and be influenced by my rantings I'll tell them not go out and harass the nearest police officer.

PLEASE DONT DO IT !!!!

[rcaf_777]

Perhaps Lt OX can answer this? which US Agencies can swear in Deputies?

I seem to recall John Wayne doing a lot of that in his movies, I dont know if the US Marhalls Service still have that power.

[.45cultist]

They do. When my BIL was on the KCMO meth task force, they would go to the Marshals and be sworn in when the dealers crossed state lines into Kansas.

[LT. Ox]

Originally Posted by .45cultist

They do. When my BIL was on the KCMO meth task force, they would go to the Marshals and be sworn in when the dealers crossed state lines into Kansas.

Yep and yes again smile. have been a "Deputy US Marshall" for short periods on a number of Occasions either to assist in a Federal arrest or search or to assist in Transport.

[LT. Ox]

"And do you really think that the members of this board seek legal advice for me? If you do I'm very flattered but really I'm actually just stating facts which are freely available online, and I stated these facts to support Schone23666's statement about the current Sovereign Citizen movement and how it could relate to a T2K scenario. However if you feel that some members of this site might be a bit feeble minded and be influenced by my rantings I'll tell them not go out and harass the nearest police officer. "

"PLEASE DONT DO IT !!!!"

Sir I did not, nor do I now think your information was solicited by Members of this board, what I think is dictated by the language of your posts and reoffered by this last is you are posting what you call , and I think strongly believe, are FACTS while in my belief they are disputed as such.
Because something is available on the either is not a proof of its truth or accuracy, as I am sure you are aware.
I have posted in response because of my training, education and much experience with the law and dealing with people that have used the mentioned organizations touted beliefs.
On several occasions contact with those that strongly held to such principles led to confrontation and ultimately to arrest and incarceration. That is fact, not supposition.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by LT. Ox

Sir I did not, nor do I now think your information was solicited by Members of this board, what I think is dictated by the language of your posts and reoffered by this last is you are posting what you call , and I think strongly believe, are FACTS while in my belief they are disputed as such.
Because something is available on the either is not a proof of its truth or accuracy, as I am sure you are aware.
I have posted in response because of my training, education and much experience with the law and dealing with people that have used the mentioned organizations touted beliefs.
On several occasions contact with those that strongly held to such principles led to confrontation and ultimately to arrest and incarceration. That is fact, not supposition.

If you feel that such facts are disputed then please feel free to dispute them.

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by RN7

If you feel that such facts are disputed then please feel free to dispute them.

OK, I will dispute them as I see it, based on my training.

Originally Posted by RN7

This actually is a very interesting topic and I can see this happening in T2K as the rights of the Sovereign Citizen as termed under Common English Law which is the defacto law of the land in most of the former British Empire and the United States is legally the highest authority in the land.

As I have said earlier the English Common Law is not the highest authority in the US. In the US it is the Constitution, and yes it was based on many things including British Common Law. But just because it was based on it does not make any part that was not included part of it.

Originally Posted by RN7

All of our major laws are part of the Common Law, practically every other legal entity has been introduced by governments for commercial and revenue generating reasons and are acts and technicalities of fairly dubious legal authority. The entire judicial system in the Western English speaking world is I believe commercial law which is not legally binding under Common Law.

As stated right above Common law is not legally binding in the US, so none of this has any application. I do know that they (the Sovereign Citizens) like to try and make a big deal out of Common/Commercial Law, but it does not hold water. One of the most common ones you see is they say that they can not be pulled over or even stop on the road and they do not need a drivers license as they are not driving (to them driving is only if for profit) they are traveling. The fact this has no bearing in fact is of no matter to them.

Originally Posted by RN7

Police officers are officers of the peace, and legally have no right to question or arrest you if you have not broken the peace or broken a law. If you have not broken a law they have no right to ask for your name and address, and traffic and tax violations are not laws so the police have no real right to bother you over them. You also have no obligation to sign anything in a police station including a release document if you have broken no law.

Were to start, first Police Officer are not "officers of the peace", does that mean that they are not trying to keep the peace, no. But they are there to keep the public order, not the same thing. They have every legal right to ask you anything that they want weather you have broken a law or not. You may not have to answer them, but that is very different from what you posted. They also as defined by the courts (laws going back to the US Constitution) have said that Police have the authority to detain someone for a reasonable amount of time to determine what has happened.

Originally Posted by RN7

There are also a lot of technicalities that you can legally challenge if you receive a summons or a fine by mail. Summonses have to be legally delivered to you in person, and all government mail is actually phrased incorrectly (deliberately) as it addresses you in your commercial strawman name in CAPS which is not your real name on your birth certificate. As you have never signed any document agreeing to the legality of a commercial summons or fine do not legally have to pay it or even attend court as you have broken no Common Law. That also applies to the draft or conscription into the armed forces.

I do not even know were to start with this, as it is so full of holes that it looks like a three year old came up with the idea. Just because your name is or is not written in caps makes no legal difference, if you say it does show me were this comes from. Once more it comes down to the fact that common law is not the law of the land.

Originally Posted by RN7

Also a judge has no other name than a judge. Using your honour etc is court is optional. Also a judge is supposed to carry their oath with them at all times in court. Very few do and if you are in court for breaking an actual law and happen to ask the judge to see his oath and he or she cant produce it then the court is invalid and you are entitled to walk free and the judge knows it

Again as common law is not the law of the land this does not hold water.

Originally Posted by RN7

Loads of potential T2k material for the legally unhappy to challenge authority.

Yes, there are many out there who try to use it, but it they have no legal standing. Would there be more in TW2000? Maybe, but seeing as there is not really a government any longer I would think they would just form there own with there group.

[Louied]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

Perhaps Lt OX can answer this? which US Agencies can swear in Deputies?

I seem to recall John Wayne doing a lot of that in his movies, I dont know if the US Marhalls Service still have that power.

When I went down to Katrina, we were told that we were all being sworn in as Deputy U.S. Marshals and/or would be sworn in a Deputy Sheriffs in whatever Parish we would be in. The powers that be on my job suddenly became very worried about this when we got down there and NOPD was basically begging us for help (offered to put two of their guys with two of our guys in each car, we called this a combat car up in NY). Sadly the nervous nellies (lawsuits or bad publicity) on my job won out, but we rescued a lot of dogs and cats........(not much actual police work)

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

Perhaps Lt OX can answer this? which US Agencies can swear in Deputies?

I seem to recall John Wayne doing a lot of that in his movies, I dont know if the US Marhalls Service still have that power.

I believe that if push came to shove all police can "Deputies" someone, as in that case all that they are doing is acting under the authority of the one who did so. You do not see it much as if I as a federal officer deputies you and you do something wrong it is on me. With the standards that there are today it is so easy for someone with out training to mess up. At the academy they talked about this just a bit, mostly with things such as if the officer is in a fight for their life and tell someone on the street to do some thing that person is covered.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

I had vaguely heard of the Sovereign Citizen movement but didn't ever look in to it or anything. Then while watching King of the Hill, Dale goes off on a crazy rant in court. The judge tells him he can't smoke in the courtroom and Dale says something to the effect that the gold-fringed US flag was a Naval flag and that he didn't have to obey Navy rules (since he'd been dishonorably discharged, if I recall). At the time I thought Mike Judge, the series' creator, had really decided to write some super-wacky nonsense stuff for Dale to spout.

Years later I found out that there are people who actually believe that courtrooms have a gold-fringed flag in them in an attempt to "put you" in a "naval" court "at sea" where the US Constitution doesn't apply, but some arcane laws influenced by Navy rules. I was flabbergasted.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Actually trying any of that is likely to end rather badly for the average person though.

Ask Wesley Snipes, or look on youtube to see any number of idiots getting tased in a courtroom because they won't shut up, or won't give their proper name, file bogus paperwork, and so on.

[LT. Ox]

Originally Posted by Louied

When I went down to Katrina, we were told that we were all being sworn in as Deputy U.S. Marshals and/or would be sworn in a Deputy Sheriffs in whatever Parish we would be in. The powers that be on my job suddenly became very worried about this when we got down there and NOPD was basically begging us for help (offered to put two of their guys with two of our guys in each car, we called this a combat car up in NY). Sadly the nervous nellies (lawsuits or bad publicity) on my job won out, but we rescued a lot of dogs and cats........(not much actual police work)

In Colorado any certified Officer acting under the cover of his uniform (in line of duty) may enlist the aid of any citizen to perform tasks under direction of himself or another Certified Officer.
This was rarely done in my day and much less so now, possible because of our suit crazy lawyer infested erp..... Way too personal.
Well I will admit that I had some problems with doing that even when it was only to direct traffic at traffic accidents, after all one doe’s not have or take time to do background and phyic evals.
I only deputized two persons to assist me in a true we got work ta do situation here in the good old west and that was at a Bar with a whole lot of drunken cowboys when the PBA rodeo was in town, seems that the good old boys did not take kindly to the MAN getting in way of personnel fights. That was in 1981 and we had twelve Road Deputies for the County 24/7. Having come from Oakland PD to that was a real “ How in the Hell did I get into this situation” moment in time.
,

[RN7]

Originally Posted by CDAT

OK, I will dispute them as I see it, based on my training.

As I have said earlier the English Common Law is not the highest authority in the US. In the US it is the Constitution, and yes it was based on many things including British Common Law.

Most of the laws of the United States, and British Commonwealth and Ireland are derived from English Common Law. The US Constitution is the highest authority in the United States but the point I was making is that laws of the United States and the former British Empire stem from Common Law. From the American Bar Association: The law of the United States was originally largely derived from the common law system of English law, which was in force at the time of the Revolutionary War. However, the supreme law of the land is the United States Constitution and, under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, laws enacted by Congress and treaties to which the United States is a party. While the U.S. Constitution states that federal law overrides state laws where there is a conflict between federal and state law, state courts are not subordinate to federal courts. There are two parallel sets of courts with different, and often overlapping, jurisdictions.

If you feel that I didn't use the right phraseology when I was replying to Schone23666's thread in relation to T2K that's fine, but as you mentioned your training I'd like to know what your training was. Was it a police officer, a lawyer or a law maker and what legal aspects did you cover? Part of Masters degree in Political Science was related to British and European Union laws and legal development and I did a great deal of research in this area so it's not a topic I am unfamiliar with.

Originally Posted by CDAT

But just because it was based on it does not make any part that was not included part of it.

I stated that "The US Constitution is I think partially based on English Common Law, now known as American Common Law. After the revolution some English Common Laws or traditions were outlawed by the US Constitution, but some were retained and over the past 230 years they have just divergence from British laws but still exist. All US states except Louisiana have enacted reception statutes which generally state that the common law of England is the law of the state to the extent that it is not repugnant to domestic law or indigenous conditions." I think this is the fourth time I have to repeat this on this thread so please stop misquoting me.

Originally Posted by CDAT

As stated right above Common law is not legally binding in the US, so none of this has any application. I do know that they (the Sovereign Citizens) like to try and make a big deal out of Common/Commercial Law, but it does not hold water.

The common-law system prevails in United Kingdom and the United States, and other countries colonized by Britain. It is distinct from the civil-law system which predominates in Europe and in areas colonized by France and Spain. The common-law system is used in all the states of the United States except Louisiana, where French Civil Law combined with English Criminal Law to form a hybrid system. The common-law system is also used in Canada except in the Province of Quebec, where the French civil-law system prevails. However as regards common law not being legally binding in the US that is open to debate. There are many books and website which will argue that the US Constitution basically adopted pre-Revolution English Common Law and called it Federal Law. If that's true or not I don't know but I do know and there are many legal experts in America who are a lot smarter than you and I who have been debating this for the past couple of centuries. But I do know that if you do any research on the US Constitution and the history of law in the United States the word Common Law pops up an awful lot. In fact the simplest explanation for the history of US laws is found on Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of..._and_precedent

In regards to T2K and how serious the Sovereign Citizen's take the importance of Common Law google: Common Law courts in Garfield County, Montana

Originally Posted by CDAT

One of the most common ones you see is they say that they can not be pulled over or even stop on the road and they do not need a drivers license as they are not driving (to them driving is only if for profit) they are traveling. The fact this has no bearing in fact is of no matter to them.

Well that is not something I stated. I said "traffic and tax violations are not laws so the police have no real right to bother you over them" as in regards to sending you a fine by mail.

Originally Posted by CDAT

Were to start, first Police Officer are not "officers of the peace", does that mean that they are not trying to keep the peace, no. But they are there to keep the public order, not the same thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_officer

Originally Posted by CDAT

They have every legal right to ask you anything that they want weather you have broken a law or not. You may not have to answer them, but that is very different from what you posted. They also as defined by the courts (laws going back to the US Constitution) have said that Police have the authority to detain someone for a reasonable amount of time to determine what has happened.

I posted "legally have no right to question or arrest you if you have not broken the peace or broken a law". If you have not broken a law then they don't but that doesn't stop them doing so and there are mitigating circumstances such as obviously being a suspect. However legally they don't have the right to arrest you if you have not broken a law unless Habeas Corpus has been suspended. But once again you think that I'm solely referring to the United States which I wasn't. The US Constitution specifically includes the habeas procedure in the Suspension Clause (Clause 2), located in Article One, Section 9. This states that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it". Section 9 is under Article 1 which states, "legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in the Congress of the United States. Incidentally Habeus Corpus has only been suspended once in US History by Lincoln in the American Civil War.

Originally Posted by CDAT

I do not even know were to start with this, as it is so full of holes that it looks like a three year old came up with the idea. Just because your name is or is not written in caps makes no legal difference, if you say it does show me were this comes from. Once more it comes down to the fact that common law is not the law of the land. Again as common law is not the law of the land this does not hold water.

Are you calling me a three year old or the idea?

Do people believe this and try to contest fines? Yes they do!

http://www.yourstrawman.com/
https://inalienablerights.wordpress.com/tickets-fines/
http://truedemocracyparty.net/2013/0...odern-slavery/
http://www.knowyourrightsgroup.com.au/fines/
http://themeasuringsystemofthegods.c..._identity.html
http://freedom-school.com/aware/your...al-person.html
http://www.nothirdsolution.com/2011/...piracy-theory/
http://youhavetheright.com/home/
http://www.thepowerhour.com/news3/in...eclaration.htm

Will I be using this argument next time I get a speeding ticket. Nope

Incidentally part of Wesely Snipes defence against tax evasion in 2006 was based upon this because the name on his indictment was listed in capital letters. He incidentally went to prison.

[rcaf_777]

We are drifting off topic and starting to attack people. let all take a deep breath and relax before this topic gets closed

Play nice before I call Mom and Dad

[Ancestor]

Originally Posted by Louied

When I went down to Katrina, we were told that we were all being sworn in as Deputy U.S. Marshals and/or would be sworn in a Deputy Sheriffs in whatever Parish we would be in. The powers that be on my job suddenly became very worried about this when we got down there and NOPD was basically begging us for help (offered to put two of their guys with two of our guys in each car, we called this a combat car up in NY). Sadly the nervous nellies (lawsuits or bad publicity) on my job won out, but we rescued a lot of dogs and cats........(not much actual police work)

Louied did you go down there as law enforcement or National Guard? I was there with 35th ID (KSARNG) and worked a bunch of legal issues as the only JAG in the Division HQ for the first three weeks. Ran into some similar issues.

[CDAT]

Sorry took me so long, been a bit busy. I will reply to some as this is a very easy topic to get out of hand.

Originally Posted by RN7

Most of the laws of the United States, and British Commonwealth and Ireland are derived from English Common Law. The US Constitution is the highest authority in the United States but the point I was making is that laws of the United States and the former British Empire stem from Common Law. From the American Bar Association: The law of the United States was originally largely derived from the common law system of English law, which was in force at the time of the Revolutionary War. However, the supreme law of the land is the United States Constitution and, under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, laws enacted by Congress and treaties to which the United States is a party. While the U.S. Constitution states that federal law overrides state laws where there is a conflict between federal and state law, state courts are not subordinate to federal courts. There are two parallel sets of courts with different, and often overlapping, jurisdictions.

Last time I read it the US Constitution was when you get right down to it a limit on what the federal government can do. If it does not specifically say they can officially they do not have the authority to do so as that power belongs to the states.

Originally Posted by RN7

If you feel that I didn't use the right phraseology when I was replying to Schone23666's thread in relation to T2K that's fine, but as you mentioned your training I'd like to know what your training was. Was it a police officer, a lawyer or a law maker and what legal aspects did you cover? Part of Masters degree in Political Science was related to British and European Union laws and legal development and I did a great deal of research in this area so it's not a topic I am unfamiliar with.

My training a bit more than eight years as a senior federal law enforcement instructor. Mostly firearms/use of force, but also ERT, and medical.

Originally Posted by RN7

I stated that "The US Constitution is I think partially based on English Common Law, now known as American Common Law. After the revolution some English Common Laws or traditions were outlawed by the US Constitution, but some were retained and over the past 230 years they have just divergence from British laws but still exist. All US states except Louisiana have enacted reception statutes which generally state that the common law of England is the law of the state to the extent that it is not repugnant to domestic law or indigenous conditions." I think this is the fourth time I have to repeat this on this thread so please stop misquoting me.

I am sorry if you feel that I was misquoting you, I was trying to say that common law English or as you called it American has no legal standing. If it is not a law written into the code it is not a law. Now does that mean it has no impact on the law, no. A good (bad you pick) Lawyer can argue precedent (Including common law) that it should mitigated the sentence but it is not a law.

Originally Posted by RN7

Are you calling me a three year old or the idea?

I was saying the idea, I do not think that you believe this. Do people, yes. If someone does believe does that make them stupid? I would say that depends on how far they take it. But that is starting to get off the point.

[rcaf_777]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

Years later I found out that there are people who actually believe that courtrooms have a gold-fringed flag in them in an attempt to "put you" in a "naval" court "at sea" where the US Constitution doesn't apply, but some arcane laws influenced by Navy rules. I was flabbergasted.

There an old Law & Order episode called Nunfication. In the episode the criminals attempt to rob a armored car which leads to the prosecution of a suburban right-wing militia group that claims to be at war with the U.S. government.

When the Criminals are put before the Judge at their hearing they claim that they are POW's they can't judge by the court. They ask the judge to refer the case to a military court, which the judge responses she can't do. Then they pull put the flag argument. The judge tell she doesn’t care how many bells or fringes are on that flag, it’s not happening

[Anna Elizabeth]

I used to run into guys like that - the "Gold Fringe" guys, when I worked retail. I guess my politeness was taken for agreement, because they would invariably escalate the conversation towards racism, homophobia, and the like.

Now I just wear my Pride jewelry all the time, and get more nasty looks, but far fewer dumbass conspiracy conversations.

[Panther Al]

My take on this whole mess is just that it does more harm than good.

Same with the 'Open Carry' clowns that you see now and then walking around with AR's.

Whist I can be called conservative on a lot (even most) of issues, I fall in the more liberal camp on enough that the local GOP back in Defiance when I lived there had hated me (To be fair to the GOP on the whole, part of the problem the locals had was that I was Jewish, and not a 'Good Christian' - and yes, they said that was the problem where as the local GOP in the DC area had no major issues at all). So I am neither hard core righty, or hard core lefty: something the reasonable conservative middle as I call it.

The whole Sovereign Citizen nonsense - and I don't say that to be offensive, it is just how I see it myself, is that it paints everyone that shares even a smidge of agreement with any particular with the same brush. And because of that, they are oft times lumped into the same group of people that have legitimate and rational issues with government as it is constituted today - making it easy for other groups, be it the press, political parties, or activists of what ever stripe, to ridicule them in toto, and make what efforts that they are trying to make be pointless.

The same goes for the Open Carry nabobs. By walking around with AR's or the like they can honestly be painted as a major problem just waiting to happen. The frighten people that do not know the basic issues they are supposedly supporting into becoming hard core anti-gunners. They cause Police Officers, who have better things to be doing, to respond to spurious issues, at times at great risk of harm to either themselves, or the ones that are causing the trouble in the first place. I have nothing against concealed, or even open carry: I've done both. But there is a difference with walking around in everyones faces with an rifle and a discretely carried pistol at ones hip. With the latter, it isn't as obvious, and those that see it can easily choose to not see it if it offends them. Granted, I only carried openly a few times when I felt the need of deterrence was worth it: taking the days deposit to be dropped off in the after-hours drop box at the bank, or when I had to do a stop in a particularly bad neighbourhood where having an obvious pistol on my hip drove the risk-reward math into my favour, and not the local bangers - believe it or not, most of them are smart enough to figure out that going after a guy with a obvious gun isn't smart.


Both these groups give the more conservative side so many PR fits there are days I swear the left is actually behind it... but then I remember to take off my tinfoil hat.